137fe5c3-b663-4b1f-84b2-0f2702a1f00f
BE000066; BE000067
Unknown
Ghent University| Renard Centre of Marine Geology Renard Centre of Marine Geology
+32 (0)9 264 45 94
Krijgslaan 281, S8
Gent
9000
Belgium
www.rcmg.ugent.be
2022-02-24T14:45:46
ISO 19115:2003/19139
1.0
ED50
MSc thesis Els Verfaillie; subzone WK2A, habitat map
BE000065
EV_0105_WK2A_ MAP_HAB
2001-05-01
2001-05-01
Area West Coast, potential future marine nature reserve close to the coast; together with other datasets (identical lui), full-coverage habitat maps were obtained; data has been verified; expert data collection
Research
Verfaillie, E. (2002). Evaluation of sonar techniques for the detection of macrobenthic communities. Unpublished MSc thesis, Universiteit Gent, Gent, 29 pp.
Unknown
Ghent University| Renard Centre of Marine Geology Renard Centre of Marine Geology
+32 (0)9 264 45 94
Krijgslaan 281, S8
Gent
9000
Belgium
www.rcmg.ugent.be
Habitats
title
2006-06-26
31F2
title
2006-11-29
Southern North Sea
Data use only after permission from the owner and according to owner's conditions
oceans
2001-05-28
2001-05-31
-26.00
7.00
46.00
64.00
Els Verfaillie
Ghent University| Renard Centre of Marine Geology, Els Verfaillie Renard Centre of Marine Geology
PhD Student
+32 (0)9 264 45 73
Krijgslaan 281, S8
Gent
9000
Belgium
els.verfaillie@ugent.be
www.rcmg.ugent.be
Unknown
Unknown
https://ows.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/geoserver/emodnet_view_maplibrary/wms?
OGC:WMS
be000065
View map "BE000065" through the EMODnet Seabed Habitats "Map Library" Web Map Service
https://ows.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/geoserver/emodnet_open_maplibrary/wfs?
OGC:WFS
be000065
Access data from map "BE000065" through the EMODnet Seabed Habitats "Map Library" Web Feature Service
https://files.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/data/EMODnetSBHsurvey_BE000065.zip
WWW:LINK-1.0-http--link
EMODnet Seabed Habitats download
MESH Confidence Assessment
https://www.emodnet-seabedhabitats.eu/resources/mesh-archive/
RemoteTechnique
An assessment of whether the remote techniques used to produce this map were appropriate to the environment they were used to survey:
3 = technique(s) highly appropriate
2 = technique(s) moderately appropriate
1 = technique(s) inappropriate
RemoteCoverage
An assessment of the coverage of the remote sensing data including consideration of heterogeneity of the seabed: (See Coverage X Heterogeneity matrix below)
Coverage scores - use these to determine coverage then combine with heterogeneity assessment to derive finale scores
3 = good coverage; 100% (or greater) coverage or AGDS track spacing <50m
2 = moderate coverage; swath approx 50% coverage or AGDS track spacing >100m
1 = poor coverage; large gaps between swaths or AGDS track spacing > 100m
Final scores
3 = good coverage OR moderate coverage + low heterogeneity
2 = moderate coverage + moderate heterogeneity OR poor coverage + low heterogeneity
1 = moderate coverage + high heterogeneity OR poor coverage + moderate or high heterogeneity
RemotePositioning
An indication of the positioning method used for the remote data:
3 = differential GPS
2 = GPS (not differential) or other non-satellite 'electronic' navigation system
1 = chart based navigation, or dead-reckoning
RemoteStdsApplied
An assessment of whether standards have been applied to the collection of the remote data. This field gives an indication of whether some data quality control has been carried out:
3 = remote data collected to approved standards
2 = remote data collected to ?internal? standards
1 = no standards applied to the collection of the remote data
RemoteVintage
An indication of the age of the remote data:
3 = < 5yrs old.
2 = 5 to 10 yrs old.
1 = > 10 years old
BGTTechnique
An assessment of whether the ground-truthing techniques used to produce this map were appropriate to the environment they were used to survey. Use scores for soft or hard substrata as appropriate to the area surveyed.
Soft substrata predominate (i.e. those having infauna and epifauna)
3 = infauna AND epifauna sampled AND observed (video/stills, direct human observation)
2= infauna AND epifauna sampled, but NOT observed (video/stills, direct human observation)
1 = infauna OR epifauna sampled, but not both. No observation.
Hard substrata predominate (i.e. those with no infauna)
3 = sampling included direct human observation (shore survey or diver survey)
2 = sampling included video or stills but NO direct human observation
1 = benthic sampling only (e.g. grabs, trawls)
PGTTechnique
An assessment of whether the combination of geophysical sampling techniques were appropriate to the environment they were used to survey. Use scores for soft or hard substrata as appropriate to the area surveyed.
Soft substrata predominate (i.e. gravel, sand, mud)
3 = full geophysical analysis (i.e. granulometry and/or geophysical testing (penetrometry, shear strenght etc))
2 = sediments described following visual inspection of grab or core samples (e.g. slightly shelly, muddy sand)
1 = sediments described on the basis of remote observation (by camera).
Hard substrata predominate (i.e. rock outcrops, boulders, cobbles)
3 = sampling included in-situ, direct human observation (shore survey or diver survey)
2 = sampling included video or photographic observation, but NO in-situ, direct human observation
1 = samples obtained only by rock dredge (or similar)
GTPositioning
An indication of the positioning method used for the ground-truth data:
3 = differential GPS
2 = GPS (not differential) or other non-satellite 'electronic' navigation system
1 = chart based navigation, or dead-reckoning
GTDensity
An assessment of what proportion of the polygons or classes (groups of polygons with the same ?habitat? attribute) actually contain ground-truth data:
3 = Every class in the map classification was sampled at least 3 times
2 = Every class in the map classification was sampled
1 = Not all classes in the map classification were sampled (some classes have no ground-truth data)
GTStdsApplied
An assessment of whether standards have been applied to the collection of the ground-truth data. This field gives an indication of whether some data quality control has been carried out:
3 = ground-truth samples collected to approved standards
2 = ground-truth samples collected to 'internal' standards
1 = no standards applied to the collection of ground-truth samples
GTVintage
An indication of the age of the ground-truth data:
3 = < 5 yrs old
2 = 5 to 10 yrs old
1 = > 10 years old
GTInterpretation
An indication of the confidence in the biological interpretation of the ground-truthing data:
3 = Evidence of expert interpretation; full descriptions and taxon list provided for each habitat class
2 = Evidence of expert interpretation, but no detailed description or taxon list supplied for each habitat class
1 = No evidence of expert interpretation; limited descriptions available
RemoteInterpretation
An indication of the confidence in the interpretation of the remotely sensed data:
3 = Appropriate technique used and documentation provided
2 = Appropriate technique used but no documentation provided
1 = Inappropriate technique used
Note that interpretation techniques can range from ?by eye? digitising of side scan by experts to statistical classification techniques.
DetailLevel
The level of detail to which the 'habitat' classes in the map have been classified:
3 = Classes defined on the basis of detailed biological analysis
2 = Classes defined on the basis of major characterising species or lifeforms
1 = Classes defined on the basis of physical information, or broad biological zones
MapAccuracy
A test of the accuracy of the map:
3 = high accuracy, proven by external accuracy assessment
2 = high accuracy, proven by internal accuracy assessment
1 = low accuracy, proved by either external or internal assessment OR no accuracy assessment made
Remote
GT
Interpretation
Survey technique(s):
Classification scheme: Local
Classification scheme details: Acoustic habitat; polygons are assigned to homogeneous acoustic facies; a Table links this up with the probable occurrence of benthic communities
Survey technique details: null
Ghent University, Renard Centre of Marine Geology
Ghent University, Renard Centre of Marine Geology
Mapping method: Supervised classification